Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Tunguska Impact Crater Found?

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the things-that-go-boom-then-splash dept.

Space 229

BigBadBus writes in with a claim by an Italian team that they may have found an impact crater resulting from the 1908 Tunguska explosion over Siberia. The BBC story quotes a number of impact experts who doubt the Italians' claim. "A University of Bologna team says a lake near the epicenter of the blast may be occupying a crater hollowed out by a chunk of rock that hit the ground. Lake Cheko — though shallow — fits the proportions of a small, bowl-shaped impact crater, say the Italy-based scientists. Their investigation of the lake bottom's geology reveals a funnel-like shape not seen in neighboring lakes. In addition, a geophysics survey of the lake bed has turned up an unusual feature about 10m down which could either be compacted lake sediments or a buried fragment of space rock."

cancel ×

229 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Lewis Tully? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19654331)

Dr. Stanz approves.

lol wut (4, Funny)

DJCacophony (832334) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655543)

"an unusual feature about 10m down which could either be compacted lake sediments or a buried fragment of space rock"

"Sir we found an anomaly at the bottom of the lake."
"Well, what could it be?"
"It's either dirt, or a ROCK FROM OUTER SPACE!!!"

Another moronic KDAWSON article! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19655559)

This article basically says that they came up with a bunch of inconclusive findings. Wooooo haaaa!!!

Hey kdawson, you are more vile than goatse.

University of Bologna? (3, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654335)

University of Bologna? My crater has a first name, it's T-u-n-g-u-s-k-a...

Re:University of Bologna? (5, Funny)

Kintar1900 (901219) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654353)

They're just letting you know in advance about the validity of their claims. ;)

Re:University of Bologna? (0)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655557)

Tunguska crater seems to me, like B-U-L-S-H-I-T.

Re:University of Bologna? (1, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654375)

I for one welcome our educated processed meat overlords.

Re:University of Bologna? (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654405)

Now....if only they'd find that Roswell Crater!!!!!

Re:University of Bologna? (5, Funny)

NeoTerra (986979) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654755)

I have a BS degree from the University of Bologna and...

Any conversation would stop there, right?

Re:University of Bologna? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19655515)

I have a BS degree from the University of Bologna and...

...it's just down the road from Uttsamatta U.

Re:University of Bologna? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19655395)

In Soviet Russian meteorite crater...Bologna is proof !!!

And when they found it... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19654347)

They said MAMMA MIA!!!!

Impact, eh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19654357)

Tunguska Impact Crater? I think you mean Tesla Death Ray Test Site.

Tunguska (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654365)

Black oil... Scully... uh, can some do the whole X-Files reference thing for me? (kinda sleepy after a big lunch...)

Re:Tunguska (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654395)

Black oil... Scully... uh, can some do the whole X-Files reference thing for me? (kinda sleepy after a big lunch...)
Don't feel too bad, that was Chris Carter's approach to the entire series.

Re:Tunguska (3, Insightful)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654545)

Exactly. At some point, the plot has to actually work. X Files rocked, but Carter got caught up in the 'revealing for the sake of revealing' treadmill.... His thematic story shows -- meant to connect and be going some where -- never really went anywhere. I think the stand-alone episodes ended up carrying the series....

Heh, one of my favorite parts is when Skully gives up her baby like she's returning a movie.

Re:Tunguska (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654745)

After year 2, it pretty much became a recreation of 'The Night Stalker'. Once I realized that, I enjoyed it much more.

The problem is... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19654833)

..the losers who try to take television seriously.

They waste hours making cunts of themselves by arguing online with other fanboys about faggoty shit like "mytharcs" or character motivations, while completely unaware, ironically, how pathetic they look.

TV, cartoons, comic books, vapidity: all Zen and one and shit.

Now watch as the kiddies with nothing better to do than have cat fights about which Favorite Four or Smurfs character was more "significant" mod me down because they think their feelings have been hurt by my comments.

Re:The problem is... (4, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655387)

..the losers who try to take television seriously.

They waste hours making cunts of themselves by arguing online with other fanboys about faggoty shit like "mytharcs" or character motivations, while completely unaware, ironically, how pathetic they look.
So what's faggier, having an interest in science fiction or having nothing better to occupy your life with than trolling people on topics you have no interest in? I see your insult of "cunt" and raise you by two "wank-stains."

Re:Tunguska (1)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655043)

Good point. He even brought back the lead star of that old show in at least one episode (was supposed to be in more but his health was failing; they used his "brother" for those episodes). Kojack I think it was. Can't remember actor's name but was the dad in Christmas Story.

In 2005, I netflicked the entire series over the whole year. I thoroughly enjoyed it all over again. One of the best series ever. The last year with Duchovny held some of the best stand-alone episodes I felt. The chemistry between Duchovny and Anderson was well polished and they were like an old dance couple. I think Anderson really had a thing for Duchovny. She was literally giddy in the one episode where he pulled her into his lap. When he left and Robert Patrick came in, those first few episodes, you could see on her face the utter bitterness at Duchovny leaving and her now having to work with Patrick.

Patrick was ok, but that replacement for Skully chick (R-something), sheesh can't remember her name, was horrible. One of the worst actors I've ever seen. Wtf were the try-outs like for that role? Can't act a requirement?

One of my all-time favorite episodes was the genie story where the two dolts found her, one working at a storage warehouse. The writing was incredible and the comedy became black as the one guy dies wishing to be invisible, taking off his clothes and getting hit by a truck chasing some girls....

Kolchak. KOLCHAK. Karl Kolchak! (1)

porkchop_d_clown (39923) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655247)

He hated when people got his name wrong. ;-)

And the actor's name was Darrin Mcgavin. He was also the original "Oscar Goldman" in the pilots for the 6 Million Dollar Man.

It would be nice to get the original TV movies for that show; I picked up the series for cheap, but I remember the original movies being a lot scarier. Of course I was 8 years old when I saw them....

Re:Tunguska (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655199)

Heh, one of my favorite parts is when Skully gives up her baby like she's returning a movie.
I totally agree with you on the stand-alones, that was some good spook stuff. I'm usually the opposite with shows, liking arc episodes more. My personal favs: Jose Chung's "From Outer Space" and his appearance on Millennium where he took a swipe at Scientology. My other favorite Millennium ep was the one with the four devils. Shit, that's gotta be on bittorrent these days, I need to get them again.

Re:Tunguska (1)

Himring (646324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655231)

Oh yea. The Jose Chung episode rocked. I also thought the Burt Reynolds episode was stellar, all the internet crowd disagrees with me. In the director's voice over, Carter reveals his brother is a scientist at MIT I believe, and the whole numbers, life-is-math stuff came from that influence. I always dig theology.

Kayne West version (2, Funny)

Kohath (38547) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654717)

The Tunguska explosion happened because George Bush doesn't care about Black Oil.

Chris Cornell version (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655353)

The Tunguska explosion happened because the American populace was sleeping while the Syndicate traded lives for Black Oil.

To save you some googling (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19654371)

Here's [keyhole.com] two views of Checko Lake from Google Earth and Google Maps

Huge penis failure (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19654427)

In your pants! [goatse.cz]

The Lone Troller

Re:Huge penis failure (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19654951)


Wow! That crater really is huge! Oh wait.. it's a man stretching his bottom open.

Re:Huge penis failure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19654957)

I can't believe its not horsecock.

Homer Simpson Says (1, Funny)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654387)

Mmmm.... University of Bologna

Re:Homer Simpson Says (2, Informative)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654983)

Mmmm.... University of Bologna ...
As I foreigner who doesn't get the joke, anybody explain this for us dummies? Some commercial we missed?
--
From Wiki:
The University of Bologna (Italian: Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna, UNIBO) is the oldest continually operating degree-granting university in the world, and the second largest university in Italy. It is located in the city of Bologna. The University of Bologna was the first university founded in the western world (AD 1088) and since 2000, its motto has been Alma mater studiorum (Latin for "fostering mother of studies"; cf. Alma mater). The university received a charter from Frederick I Barbarossa in 1158, but in the 19th century, a committee of historians led by Giosuè Carducci traced the birth of the University back to 1088. The University celebrated its 900th anniversary in 1988, making it arguably the longest-lived occidental university.

Re:Homer Simpson Says (3, Informative)

terrymr (316118) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655065)

Wikipedia:

Bologna sausage is an American version of the Italian mortadella (a finely hashed/ground pork sausage with lard pieces, which originated in the Italian city of Bologna). The American version can alternatively be made out of chicken, turkey, beef, pork, or soybeans. It is commonly called bologna and often pronounced (by hypercorrection) and/or spelled baloney. The "baloney" pronunciation can be used to mean "lies" and/or to express disbelief (see below).

Re:Homer Simpson Says (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655069)

This should help:

Bologna Sausage [wikipedia.org]

Re:Homer Simpson Says (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655139)

As I foreigner who doesn't get the joke, anybody explain this for us dummies? Some commercial we missed?
Well, Homer Simpson was probably thinking of Bologna spaghetti sauce, or maybe Bologna sausage (mortadella Bologna).

Google Maps (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654389)

Areal view of what was believed to be the original impact site [google.com] and Lake Cheko [google.com] .

I'm no geologist so I can't comment on whether or not this lake looks typical but I will say that, judging by the coloration of the foliage around it, this is probable the same land as the river/stream that winds to the west of it. Interesting is that if you follow it northwest for miles it looks smooth cut. Once it passes Lake Cheko, it seems to become more speckled and pock marked. Doesn't seem 'natural' to me for an inlet and outlet to be positioned so close together on a lake--though the topography could indeed make that make sense if I could see a map of it.

I would guess this is quite feasible indeed to be part of whatever happened nearly 100 years ago. Check out the last page of this PDF [aero.org] which seems to show the comet/asteroid approaching at an angle (thus the strange blast pattern). At that trajectory, you'd think there'd be a chance for whatever hit to break apart and skip. Maybe the other abnormal marks in the stream are from other pieces/debris?

Probably fueled by the sci-fi stories written about the same topic (like the 1946 one by Alexander Kazantsev), I find it interesting to read about things like the Tunguska Genetic Anomaly [arxiv.org] whether they be true or not. Maybe these are the scientist's tabloids? :)

Re:Google Maps (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19654527)

I'm no geologist so I can't comment
Clearly not true, unfortunately.

Re:Google Maps (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19655075)

There are similar lakes, albeit much smaller, just to the northwest [google.com] and to the east [google.com] along the same river. They look like flooded meander [wikipedia.org] cutoffs [wikipedia.org] to me. The outer edge of the lake opposite the river entry and exit (i.e. the N, E, and S sides) would fit the shape of a former stream channel with the same kind of sinuosity as the rest of the river.

The mundane explanation looks far more likely than the exotic one, and where's the crater rim?? It's entirely absent. Why is the lake elliptical? As the article mentions, it takes a very low angle impact to yield an elliptical crater.

Also from the article:

"Intriguingly, Lake Cheko does not appear on any maps before 1929, though the researchers admit the region was poorly charted before this time."

It's on a river floodplain (although the river doesn't look especially active). If it is a meander cutoff, it might have formed subsequent to the maps. More interesting would be to sample sediment cores from local lakes that *are* on pre-1929 maps, and see if there is a meteoritic dust layer from the 1929 event.

This "crater" looks completely unconvincing. I can't believe they managed to get this claim published in Terra Nova or any other journal.

Re:Google Maps (2, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655513)

Doesn't seem 'natural' to me for an inlet and outlet to be positioned so close together on a lake--though the topography could indeed make that make sense if I could see a map of it.

Go take a basic geography course. Easiest conclusion is that there was a sharp bend in the river there that eroded away and the stream filled in the low-lying areas.

And using Google for comparing foliage is like using a rubber band to measure distances. Pictures could have been taken at different days, times, seasons, etc.

Shouldn't this be easy to prove? (4, Interesting)

pclminion (145572) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654399)

If this is in fact the real impact site, shouldn't there be elevated iridium levels in the lake sediments, as is usually found at other impact sites? I guess "prove" is too strong a term, but I'd challenge anyone to find an alternate explanation for elevated iridium, if found.

Re:Shouldn't this be easy to prove? (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654483)

If this is in fact the real impact site, shouldn't there be elevated iridium levels in the lake sediments, as is usually found at other impact sites? I guess "prove" is too strong a term, but I'd challenge anyone to find an alternate explanation for elevated iridium, if found.

It's impossible to be scientific based on the material in the article, but a few things jumped out at me. The most telling are that there's no upside-down layer of material around the supposed crater, and then there's the following passage:

"We have no positive proof this is an impact crater, but we were able to exclude some other hypotheses, and this led us to our conclusion," Professor Longo, the research team leader, told BBC News.

so wait, there is no positive proof that this is an impact crater, but you concluded that it is? that sounds like bullshit to me.

But IANAG[eologist] or in any related field, and of course this is just one little article on the beeb which is pretty much known for fucking up the technical details...

Re:Shouldn't this be easy to prove? (2, Insightful)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654899)

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

They eliminated pretty much everything but an impact crater. Thus, they think it might be an impact crater.

Re:Shouldn't this be easy to prove? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655117)

They eliminated pretty much everything but an impact crater. Thus, they think it might be an impact crater.

No. They eliminated everything else they could imagine that would explain it, and therefore concluded (in the words of the project lead) that it was an impact crater. Not "think it might be", but "believe that it is".

If this is not the case, perhaps the project lead should not have said that it was.

If he's not a native English speaker (I don't know if he is or not, just trying to head off possible replies) then instead of trying to make himself sound more knowledgeable than he really is by using a word like "concluded", he should stick with words he actually knows.

While it's not precisely applicable in this situation, there is a saying that goes something like "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence". This is actually a lack of evidence, which is not evidence of anything! It's a lack thereof!

The project lead himself says that he doesn't actually have any supporting material, just a lack of theories which contradict his case. Trying to disprove alternate theories is not useless, but it doesn't prove anything. All we have so far is conjecture, which does not support a conclusion.

Re:Shouldn't this be easy to prove? (4, Insightful)

btgreat (895041) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655341)

Though he said he didn't have positive evidence, it does sound like they have negative evidence. The way you describe their conclusions makes it seem like there was no other reason for a lake to be there so it must have been a crater. What it sounds like to me is that instead of there being no other theories contradicting his case, they were able to disprove those other theories, and all that was left is impact crater.

I don't think there was absence of evidence, it was just that the evidence applied to other theories rather than the impact crater. Simple deductive reasoning: A lake was formed. It could have been by methods A, B, or C. We have evidence that it wasn't A or B. Thus it was C.

Semantics aside, some of the material presented in the article does make the researchers' conclusion seem somewhat dubious. I'm not arguing that the lake was the crater, just that it is possible that the professor is more justified than the article might make him appear at first glance.

Re:Shouldn't this be easy to prove? (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655349)

Lack of contradicting evidence is frequently used to figure out the most likely possibility. A type of Ockham's Razor, if you would. If they can disprove all other more likely possibilities, that would leave them with this.

It's also possible that, if this came through a translator, the translator used "concluded" instead of "hypothesized" or something similar, and that the scientists think that an impact crater is just the best possible theory for the moment. If they find evidence that doesn't fit or that makes something else more likely, then something else would be the new suspect.

Re:Shouldn't this be easy to prove? (1)

jagilbertvt (447707) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655391)

If he's not a native English speaker (I don't know if he is or not, just trying to head off possible replies) then instead of trying to make himself sound more knowledgeable than he really is by using a word like "concluded", he should stick with words he actually knows.
Or perhaps the quote was translated from his original language by someone else?

Unfortunately (5, Informative)

porkchop_d_clown (39923) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655157)

The most widely accepted explanation for not finding the crater is that there isn't one: Most geologists believe the Tunguska object exploded in the air. (This sounds crazy, but it's apparently possible - just as a person doing a belly flop off a cliff is going to be killed by the impact, a meteor can be destroyed by the impact with the lower atmosphere.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event [wikipedia.org]

Re:Unfortunately (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655273)

Knew about that without even looking at the post. I heard that theory years ago as the most plausible explanation. I was just pointing out a bit of logic to the parent.

Re:Unfortunately (3, Informative)

btgreat (895041) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655379)

Even the researchers from the article believe that.. The difference here is that they think a small piece of the airbursted object survived and hit the ground, causing a small crater - the lake. At least, thats what I got out of TFA.

Re:Shouldn't this be easy to prove? (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655501)

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

They eliminated pretty much everything but an impact crater. Thus, they think it might be an impact crater.


This only works when you can be reasonably confident you have an exhaustive list of the possibilities. That really doesn't sound very likely in this case; it's too easy for it to be something they didn't think of.

Chris Mattern

Re:Shouldn't this be easy to prove? (2, Informative)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654767)

According to the article, they plan on sending another expedition next year and drilling at the lake.

Re:Shouldn't this be easy to prove? (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655313)

Not if it was a comet

So many meteor shaped lakes (0)

Realistic_Dragon (655151) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654407)

...and if you think that the little ones wiped out the dinosaurs, imagine what creatures must have been wiped out by the meteor that created the Pacific!

Re:So many meteor shaped lakes (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654723)

meteor that created the Pacific

You mean the moon?

Re:So many meteor shaped lakes (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654801)

Nah, the Moon is the ejecta from that impact. The actual meteor was much bigger.

well (4, Informative)

mastershake_phd (1050150) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654411)

After the many expeditions to Tunguska, wouldn't one of them have noticed a crater shaped lake? From what I saw on a documentary about it the first expedition drained and dug in every hole they found in that swamp.

any idea how large the region is? (5, Insightful)

iHasaFlavour (1118257) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654867)

Tunguska is big, really big..

And extremely remote. It's not even slightly surprising that this was missed.

The original expidition didn't head to the impact site until years after the event, and still they found a devastated surface, and no-one went back again for a very long time.

Until fairly recently it just wasn't feasable to do any kind of large scale study of the region. I think people sometimes forget just how barking huge our planet is, you'd be amazed at the number of area's that are still effectivelly blanks on the map, or mapped by air/satellite only.

Re:any idea how large the region is? (1)

btgreat (895041) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655413)

Also, I believe TFA mentioned that the lake wasn't really crater shaped. It was elliptical enough that the impact would have had to have been at less than 10 degrees according to the article. Even if it was found, it would have been possible that it was disregarded in an early survey.

Re:any idea how large the region is? (1)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655451)

Just for some perspective, it appears this area is on about the 60th parallel. If this were north america, this would be about where Canadian Manitoba/SK end on the north end, and Yukon/Northwest Territories begin. This isn't like a vacation to Vancouver.

what would we find here (2, Interesting)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654435)

Now what would we find at this site if it were the tunguska impact crater? since it was likely mostly ice/volatiles mixed with some rocky material would it be fair to say that we wouldnt be finding evidence of shok metamorphosis when the volatiles likely carried off most of the heat? for that matter, would there even be a single crater when the original object shattered as it did? wouldnt it be likely that several small impacts form and over the years erode?

Re:what would we find here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19655079)

would it be fair to say that we wouldnt be finding evidence of shok metamorphosis when the volatiles likely carried off most of the heat?

If we're claiming it hit hard enough to make a frickin' crater, then no.

In other news... (5, Funny)

Critical Facilities (850111) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654465)

A University of Bologna team says a lake near the epicenter of the blast may be occupying a crater hollowed out by a chunk of rock that hit the ground.


An official with the University of Horseshit was quoted as saying "That's not a lake, that's partially liquified alien spaceships.". Reached for a response prior to teaching a class at the College of Bullcrap, Professor Dumbass had the following to say, "Well, it could be a meteor, it could be a meatball, who can say really?"

Not a troll (5, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654727)

It's not a troll. It's called humor. And it's entirely ontopic and appropriate as well - the article basically has a bunch of people saying "it might be some shit" but they have no proof whatsoever. They claim to have ruled out several other possibilities which led them to the "conclusion" (how do you come to a conclusion with no evidence?) that it was the Tunguska impact crater. Now let's see, how many problems are there with this?

  1. Tunguska probably wouldn't even have a crater, because it was an airburst. At best, it would have several small ones, which might not even be detectable any more.
  2. The article claims that if there were a crater, it would be shaped differently.
  3. There is no supporting evidence that this was the Tunguska crater.

Now, if they dig into this lake and figure out what the submerged lump in it is, which might be a rock and might just be a lump of sediment, then this will be more interesting. But this is a completely non-story story. There are no facts here, other than that some people have made an assumption which might or might not be warranted, because they lacked imagination to come up with hypotheses they couldn't shoot down.

A better title would be "Scientists believe they have located Tunguska Crater without corroborating evidence".

Parent comment, even if intended to be a joke just about the name of the Uni (I do not believe it is, based on having RTFA, shock amazement) is still entirely apt. Perhaps the bonehead who modded it troll should check out the moderation guidelines?

Re:Not a troll (1)

Critical Facilities (850111) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654849)

Parent comment, even if intended to be a joke just about the name of the Uni (I do not believe it is, based on having RTFA, shock amazement) is still entirely apt. Perhaps the bonehead who modded it troll should check out the moderation guidelines?

Actually, I was intending both (and thanks for the defensive argument). I too thought the article was a little light on facts and made some admittedly juvenile cracks about the name of the Uni (gimme a break, it's late in the day and I'm tired). I was definitely not trolling.

Re:Not a troll (0, Offtopic)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654943)

thanks for the defensive argument

We the mismoderated must stick together, because it's abundantly clear that the management of slashdot has no intention of addressing the failings in the moderation system or policing the results of its spectacularly bad design.

And for those of you who think I'm an ass, remember this next time you get mismoderated; you might not agree with what I say, but if you don't speak up for the assholes, there will be no one left to speak up on your behalf - because we nails that stick up furthest get hammered down first.

Re:Not a troll (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655067)

wow, way to adapt a very noble sentiment to your extremely trivial situation. Martyr much?

Ok, that's a little flip, but your user page shows no mod bombing or anything. got a link to one of these egregious affronts to common decency you're the brunt of?

Re:Not a troll (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655175)

wow, way to adapt a very noble sentiment to your extremely trivial situation. Martyr much?

Wow, way to speak sarcastically about my comment in an attempt to discredit my statement. Asshole much?

Ok, that's a little flip, but your user page shows no mod bombing or anything. got a link to one of these egregious affronts to common decency you're the brunt of?

I haven't had anything serious in the last couple of days, because I haven't pissed in anyone's Cheerios lately. I seem to go through waves of being an asshole and not, but lately I've been making a serious effort to be civil. I haven't always succeeded, but I've been paring it down substantially. Typically though, I'm not just being modded "Flamebait" when I'm being an asshole - at least that would be reasonable. Instead, I'm typically moderated "Overrated", which is almost all cases is simply a dodge used for bullshit moderation so that it doesn't go through metamoderation.

I post enough comments to where the serial abuses of moderation (several of which have been directed at me since I began posting here, which like many other users was after substantial lurking) tend to be somewhat lost in the noise. But when they all come in the context of one conversation (as they occasionally do) they are especially damaging.

Also, how many deliberate mismoderations do there have to be before you believe it's a problem?

Re:Not a troll (1)

rhakka (224319) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655549)

it needs to be a fairly consistent problem. this is a user moderated system. As such, it is not perfect. In fact, no system is perfect. So if someone shits on your posts with mod points once in awhile, that's not really cause for concern. Crying about how slashdot is broken, and playing the martyr just makes you look psycho unless you can back it up. there are plenty of people on this site who have no grasp on reality, so why can't you be one of them?

You can say I'm an asshole, and I suppose I'm not being terribly diplomatic. But Especially if you yourself acknowledge you go through waves of being an asshole, let me just clue you in: karma is not just a point system. If you piss in people's cheerios, they are less charitable with what you have to say. For instance, you're probably not going to look too favorably toward me after this, right? Cause I have told you I think you sound pretty psycho or at least overly dramatic about this. Does that change the content of everything I post after this? no, just your perspective. does that mean slashdot is broken? If you get mod points and decide you think I'm an asshole, I might have some consequences from this.

But it would be the seeds I myself have sown, wouldn't it. Funny how that works... kind of like, I don't know.... karma.

Re:Not a troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19655261)

Don't feed the trolls - when drinkypoo says something stupid, let it slide.

Re:Not a troll (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19655277)

The Slashdot moderation system is a terrible method of separating out good posts from bad posts, but all the other ones I've seen are even worse.

Re:Not a troll (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655351)

"the article basically has a bunch of people saying "it might be some shit" but they have no proof whatsoever. They claim to have ruled out several other possibilities which led them to the "conclusion" (how do you come to a conclusion with no evidence?) that it was the Tunguska impact crater."

You've just described the reasoning used in virtually every UFO show I've seen.

Re:Not a troll (1)

Delight-Delirium (415145) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655567)

Let's get one thing straight, it was NOT an air burst, it was an alien spaceship, and the explosion planted the seeds of communism across the glorious Russian frontier!!

Or something like that

Well (3, Interesting)

Bandman (86149) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654471)

Shocked quartz could solve the matter once and for all.

Trees standing near the impact site aren't that big of an anomaly, although they do point to an airborne explosion. IIRC some of the witnesses reported that there were standing trees, and modeling of the event (as well as other powerful explosions which occurred at an altitude) have left standing trees, edifaces, and so on, directly below the force of explosion.

Personally, I'm still hoping for Tesla's Death Ray

Not just Tesla (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19654689)

The wiki article on Tunguska lists several speculative causes of the 'event' in addition to Tesla. It seems to be the Russian equivalent of Area 51.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event [wikipedia.org]

Speculative hypotheses

Scientific understanding of the behaviour of meteorites in the Earth's atmosphere was much sparser during the early decades of the 20th century. Due to this lack of knowledge, as well as a paucity of scientific data about Tunguska due to Soviet secrecy during the Cold War, a great many other hypotheses for the Tunguska event have sprung up, with varying degrees of credibility. The hypotheses listed below are all rejected by modern science and by skeptics who generally see them as being gross violations of Occam's Razor

Natural H-bomb

In 1989, the astronomers D'Alessio and Harms suggested that some of the deuterium in a comet entering the Earth atmosphere may have undergone a nuclear fusion reaction, leaving a distinctive signature in form of carbon-14. They concluded that the release of nuclear energy may have been almost negligible. Independently, in 1990, César Sirvent proposed that a deuterium comet, i.e., a comet with an anomalous high concentration of deuterium into its composition, may have exploded as a natural hydrogen bomb, generating most of the energy released. The sequence would be first a mechanical or kinetic explosion, and instants later a thermonuclear reaction generated by this first explosion. This hypothesis would explain the inconsistences related to an unusual high ratio of electromagnetic energy / kinetic energy and cited in the famous paper by Cowan, Atluri, and Libby published in Nature.[citation needed] It is, however, inconsistent with knowledge both of the composition of comets and of the temperature and pressure conditions necessary for initiating a nuclear fusion reaction.

[edit] Black hole

In 1973, Albert A. Jackson IV and Michael P. Ryan, Jr., physicists at the University of Texas, proposed that the Tunguska event was caused by a "small" (around 10-20 g to 10-22 g) black hole passing through the Earth. Unfortunately for this hypothesis, there is no evidence for a second explosion occurring as the black hole exited the Earth and it has not gained wide acceptance. Furthermore, Stephen Hawking's subsequent hypothesis that black holes radiate energy via Hawking radiation indicates that such a small black hole would have evaporated away long before it could encounter the Earth.

[edit] Antimatter

In 1965, Cowan, Atluri, and Libby suggested that the Tunguska event was caused by the annihilation of a chunk of antimatter falling from space. However, as with the other hypotheses described in this section, this does not account for the mineral debris left in the area of the explosion. Furthermore, there is no astronomical evidence for the existence of such chunks of antimatter in our region of the universe. If such objects existed, they should be constantly producing energetic gamma rays due to annihilation against the interstellar medium, but such gamma rays have not been observed.

[edit] The Wardenclyffe Tower

It has been suggested, by Oliver Nichelson, that the Tunguska explosion may have been the result of an experiment by Nikola Tesla using the Wardenclyffe Tower, performed during one of Robert Peary's North Pole expeditions.[6]

[edit] UFO crash

UFO aficionados have long claimed that the Tunguska event is the result of an exploding alien spaceship or even an alien weapon going off to "save the Earth from an imminent threat". This hypothesis appears to originate from a science fiction story penned by Soviet engineer Alexander Kazantsev in 1946, in which a nuclear-powered Martian spaceship, seeking fresh water from Lake Baikal, blew up in mid-air. This story was inspired by Kazantsev's visit to Hiroshima in late 1945.

Many events in Kazantsev's tale were subsequently confused with the actual occurrences at Tunguska. The nuclear-powered UFO hypothesis was adopted by TV drama critics Thomas Atkins and John Baxter in their book The Fire Came By (1976). The 1998 television series The Secret KGB UFO Files (Phenomenon: The Lost Archives), broadcast on Turner Network Television, referred to the Tunguska event as "the Russian Roswell" and claimed that crashed UFO debris had been recovered from the site. In 2004, a group from the Tunguska Space Phenomenon Public State Fund claimed to have found the wreck of an alien spacecraft at the site [2].

The proponents of the UFO hypothesis have never been able to provide any significant evidence for their claims. It should be noted that the Tunguska site is downrange from the Baikonur Cosmodrome and has been contaminated repeatedly by Russian space debris, most notably by the failed launch of the fifth Vostok test flight on December 22, 1960. The payload landed close to the Tunguska impact site, and a team of engineers was dispatched there to recover the capsule and its two canine passengers (which survived).


55 Fiction (1, Interesting)

Carthag (643047) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654475)

In the far reaches of the Siberian tundra, the shaman sits naked. To his left, the head of a freshly slain hare, to his right, a small bundle of herbs. As he calls out in the old language that he is the last to know, the sky lights up like a thousand suns.

Tunguska remembers.

Re:55 Fiction (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654553)

In the far reaches of the Siberian tundra, the shaman sits naked. To his left, the head of a freshly slain hare, to his right, a small bundle of herbs. As he calls out in the old language that he is the last to know, the sky lights up like a thousand suns.

Tunguska remembers.
With a story like that, I'd certainly hope it wasn't Pepperidge Farms.

Re:55 Fiction (1)

hazem (472289) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655445)

What is that from? I love the imagery... a whole lot said in 4 short sentences.

Thank goodness (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654479)

I was wondering where I left that..

Hah! Everyone knows it wasnt a meteorite... (2, Interesting)

Tmack (593755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654505)

It was a quantum black hole [wikipedia.org] passing through the earth!

The most they will ever find is a nano sized cave where it traveled through the earth at near-light speed before going about its way after popping out through an ocean on the other side....

tm

More like blast effect crater? (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654535)

I don't think there is a "true" impact crater per se, but more like the possibility that the explosion of the object very low off the ground causing a very strong blast wave that did result in something that looks like a crater. It would be akin to the low-altitude air burst nuclear explosions of over 1 MT during the early 1960's atmospheric tests from nuclear bombs dropped from B-52 bombers.

Dangerous (2, Funny)

xinjiang77 (1106823) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654621)

Since no man has discovered the blast site until now, how do we know the object is not composed of highly dangerous contaminants/heavy metals that humans have not discovered yet?

Re:Dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19655089)

Hmm, 'heavy metals that we haven't discovered yet'.

Keep reading the textbooks.

Re:Dangerous (4, Funny)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655487)

how do we know the object is not composed of highly dangerous contaminants/heavy metals that humans have not discovered yet?

The expedition member wearing the red shirt came back alive.

Oh sure (3, Funny)

Grashnak (1003791) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654631)

Oh, and I just bet you doubters have a better explanation for a hole in the ground full of water? I thought not.

Re:Oh sure (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655377)

Pffft, obviously it is the flooded entrance to the hollow earth where Hitler and his UFO riding Nazi pals are hiding. Any other questions?

The Easy Question Is... (2, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654651)

The easy question is, was there any record of this lake before the explosion?

Follow up with, are there other lakes that didn't exist before the explosion, but do since?

Re:The Easy Question Is... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654803)

assuming it didn't hit a lake that already existed.

The easy answer (FTFA) is ... (2, Insightful)

benhocking (724439) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654971)

No. However, it was a poorly surveyed area, so non-existence of (prior) evidence is not evidence of (prior) non-existence.

Re:The Easy Question Is... (1)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655015)

Real easy question huh? It was in 1906. It was in a very remote area (Nobody is believed to have died in the explosion). So, you think the indigenous people, who chalked the explosion up the the fury of their god; had the area which is remote even to them, all mapped out and surveyed in 1906?

Nonsense (1)

Jerek Dain (646055) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654683)

Sounds like a bunch of bologna to me.

I'd Like To See Another Tunguska (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19654713)

. . . land on top of Mecca.

Now, that's a sign from God.

Re:I'd Like To See Another Tunguska (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655405)

You'll be in the cell in Hell right next to Osama, you know that, right?

Gas Explosion (1)

BigBadBus (653823) | more than 7 years ago | (#19654827)

According to the article on the BBC website, no-one knows if the lake was there before or after the blast.

Anyway, the theory is a lot more convincing than the theory that a fissure caused a release of gas which exploded, and was mentioned in one of Arthur C.Clarke's "Mysterious World" books.

Re:Gas Explosion (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655033)

Hmm, maybe they'll find a whale skeleton at the bottom of the lake. So long and thanks for the fish...

Re:Gas Explosion (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19655169)

You mean, Swamp Gas Explosion(tm)?

What about Tesla (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19654865)

No one ever will find an impact crater, because Nikola Tesla did it [wikipedia.org]

Finally a good science quote (3, Interesting)

cvd6262 (180823) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655051)

I'm so tired of hearing "researchers" talk about the certainties of their discoveries. This is a breath of fresh air:

"We have no positive proof this is an impact crater, but we were able to exclude some other hypotheses, and this led us to our conclusion," Professor Longo, the research team leader, told BBC News.

Hydrothermal crater? (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655197)

From memory, a funnel-shaped profile is what you would expect from a hydrothermal crater (steam explosion) - no impact required. A quick Google indicates that hydrothermal activity occurred throughout the region in the past, so it's plausible. (The articles claims "[they] were able to exclude some other hypotheses", but doesn't state what those hypotheses were.)

Source (1)

MatchbooksAndSarcasm (1111757) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655211)

I wonder if they considered the possibility that this is just the water from that other lake that mysteriously dried up recently?

"Ray, the lake migrated about a foot and a half."

mmmmm... (1)

Beefslaya (832030) | more than 7 years ago | (#19655519)

Bologna....uhhhhhhhhhhhhh
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>